Wirecast Vs BoinxTV

Obviously since there is a wirecast forum here this would be an ideal place to ask. Why people prefer wirecast over boinxTV? From the posts regarding boinxTV it looks like it's much more resource intensive. But I'd greatly appreciate if someone to tell me other benefits for the shoot i'm trying to setup for.

details:
the shoot:
• have a presenter that is presenting a powerpoint presentation infront of an audience
• audience members ask questions at the end of the presentation
• an example would be like the apple keynotes with Steve jobs.

sources:
• 1 - camera point at the presenter
• 2 - presentation on the laptop
• 3 - camera (optional) - point at the audience members

trying to accomplish:
• trying to eliminate post production efforts and upload as soon as possible the content.
• combine all 3 shots with transitions, lower thirds and basic video effects.

tools:
• 2 macbook pros (1 presenter laptop, 1 spare)
• 2 kodak zi8 cameras ( can these be used or an upgrade to an actual camera, any portable recommendations)
• what else would i need?

If you're streaming, Wirecast is an encoder, Boinx would require the addition of a screen grabber and an encoder on top of that . . . to a program which is already more resource intensive.

Desktop Presenter (part of Wirecast) can send video over IP from another computer. You'd have to hard wire that with Boinx. Even if you used a third party screen grabber, they tend not to send video over IP.

Boinx has nifty title and graphics capabilities if that's important.

Personally I think Wirecast is much easier to use as a multi source switcher given how easy it is to go from layered shot to layered shot. You can do switching Boinx but it's a but more work to do given how it handles layering.